Penalties - or not?

30 Nov 2015

The Supreme Court decision in the consolidated appeals of El Makdessi and ParkingEye has provided some clarity in the complex area of the rule against penalties. It held that the relevant contractual clauses in El Makdessi and ParkingEye were not unenforceable penalties, and therefore the relevant charges could be levied. The court also held that there was no breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“UTCCR”). (Cavendish Square Holding BV v El Makdessi and ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67).

The longstanding rule against penalties provides that a contractual clause which is a penalty is unenforceable. It was last considered by the House of Lords in 1915 in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage Motor Co. Ltd. [1915] AC 847. That case established tests for determining whether a clause was a genuine pre-estimate of loss (and enforceable) or a penalty and a deterrent (and unenforceable).

The recent Supreme Court decision did not abolish the rule against penalties or explicitly reconstruct or extend it. However, it was held that the real question is whether the charge being levied is unreasonably excessive, and not whether it is a pre-estimate of loss. The judgment means a charge may be deemed reasonable even if it greatly exceeds the cost to the trader: the trader is allowed to recover its costs, add an element for deterrence, and a further element for profit.

The El Makdessi case related to a substantial commercial contract, while ParkingEye case involved a consumer who disputed a parking “long stay” charge raised it as a separate issue under the UTCCR. In that case it was held that the relevant term was not within the basic test for unfairness.

For more information on commercial or contractual matters please contact:

Further reading

Supporting employees through the next lockdown

Managing your employees through uncertainty and equipping them to thrive, remain engaged and feel part of a team environment, must be a HR priority for 2021.
Read more Read

Remote working and home security

Blog, News & PR
With a large proportion of the workforce now working from home, security arrangements for home workers need to be addressed - Robert Ganpatsingh explains
Read more Read

Tenants take note: dilapidations damages to be subject to VAT

Blog, Legal Updates
Property expert Cheraine Williams explains why dilapidations could be about to get more expensive
Read more Read

Covid business interruption insurance payments due to small and medium companies

Blog, Legal Updates
Partner Jonathan Compton looks at the Supreme Court’s decision on business interruption insurance
Read more Read
  • Brighton Office

    1 Jubilee Street


    East Sussex

    BN1 1GE

  • Gatwick Office

    Griffin House

    135 High Street


    West Sussex

    RH10 1DQ

  • Guildford Office

    Wonersh House

    The Guildway

    Old Portsmouth Road



    GU3 1LR

  • Horsham Office

    Ridgeland House

    15 Carfax


    West Sussex

    RH12 1DY

  • London Office

    6 New Street Square

    New Fetter Lane


    EC4A 3BF

  • Get in touch